~

~~611f;\~<:<-t'I\ REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. .\~ ." ~j SANDIGANBAYAN~. ~ .

'~~.J-p~ Quezon CIty -

FIRST DIVISION

PEOPLEOF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

-versus-

Crim. CaseNo.SB-16-CRM-O131For: Violation of Sec.3(e),R.A. No. 3019, asamended

JUANITo K. AMPAGUEY.Accused.

Present:DE LA CRUZ, J.,Chairperson

ECONG,J. andCALDONA,J.

. PROMULGATED:

x ~~~-~~_~_L~ ~

DECISIONEcong, J:

Accused JUANITO KIBATAY AMPAGUEY, former Registerof Deedsof the Registry of Deedsof Baguio City, is charged withviolating Section 3, Paragraph (e)of Republic Act No. 3019, asamended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and CorruptPractices Act.

The Information- reads as follows:

That on 14 April 2010, or sometimeprior or subsequentthereto, in Baguio City, Benguet Provinceand within thejurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused JuanitoAmpaguey y Kibatay, a public officer, being then theRegisterof Deedsof the Registryof Deedsfor Baguio City,Bertguet Province,while in the performanceof his officialfunctions as such, and taking advantage of his officialposition, through evident bad faith, manifest partiality orgrossinexcusablenegligence,did then and there, willfully,unlawfully, criminally and unilaterally cancel privatecomplainant Dr. Dick LeeOng'sTransferCertificateofTitle(TCT)No. T-62576 covering a parcel of land situated in

1 Information dated March I, 2016 and filed on March 30, 2016.

DecisionPeople v.juanito K.AmpagueySB-16-CRM-0131Page 2 of 38x -------------- ----------------- ------ ------ --- ------ -------- -- x

Baguio City, Benguet,consistingof SevenHundred FiftyFive (755) square meters, by issuing TCT No. 018-2010001035in favor of spousesFerdinandand RhighinaSamidan,without requiringthe presentationof the owner'sduplicate copy of TCT No. T-62576, or a court orderauthorizing him to issuenewowner'sduplicate certificatein lieu of purported lost TCTNo.T-62576, thereby givingunwarranted benefits,advantageor-preferenceto spousesSamidanand causingundue injury to privatecomplainantamounting to the lot's market value in the amount ofphp171,500.00and actual legalexpensesin recoveringthetitle from spousesSamidanamounting to Php189,253.64,to private complainant'sdamageand prejudice.

AccusedwasarraignedonJuly 28,2016 and pleadednot guiltyto the chargeagainsthim.

During pre-trial.?the partiesstipulatedon the followingfacts,ascontainedin this Court'sPre-trial Order,to wit:

1.The accused admitted that whenever Juanito KibatayAmpagueyis referredto orallyor in writing by the Court, theprosecutionand _itswitnesses,he is the samepersonbeingreferredto.

2. Theaccusedadmittedthat he is the Registerof Deedsof theRegistryof Deedsof BaguioCity at the time material to thepresentcase.

3. TCTNo. 018-201000010135was issued on April 14, 2010,under the name of Spouses Ferdinand Samidan andRhighinaSamidan.

4. An Administrative Casefor GraveMisconduct docketedasADM CaseNo. 12-06was filed against the accusedat theLand RegistrationAuthority.

5. A Resolution dated August 31, 2012 was promulgatedinADM CaseNo. 12-06by the LRA,finding the accusedguiltyof the administrative charge of grave misconduct andimposing a penalty of dismissal from the servicependingappealwith the Officeof the President.

6. A decisiondated May 18, 2015 was renderedin Civil CaseNo. 7443-R by Presiding Judge Antonio C. Reyes,RTC

2 Pre-Trial Order April 3, 2017.

Decision.People v.juanito K AmpagueySB-16-CRM-0131Page 3 of 38x ------- ------------------- --- ---------- ------- -------- ------ -- x

Branch 61, Baguio City, pending appeal In the Court ofAppeals.

During the samepre-trial, the partiesproposedthe followingissuesto be resolved:

As proposedby the prosecution:

• Whether the accused, while in the performance of his officialfunctions as Registerof Deedsof the Registry of Deeds for BaguioCity, Beriguet Province,and taking advantageof his official position,through evident bad faith, manifest partiality or gross inexcusablenegligence;willfully, unlawfully; criminally and unilaterally cancelprivate complainant Dr. Dick LeeOng'sTCTNo. T-62576 by issuingTCT No. 018-20101035 in favor of spousesFerdinand and RhighinaSamidan,without requiring the presentationof the Owner'sDuplicateCertificate Copy of TCT No. T-62576, or a Court Order authorizinghim to issue a new Owner's Duplicate Certificate, thereby givingunwarranted benefits, advantageor preferenceto spousesSamidanand causing undue injury to private complainant amounting to thelot's market value in the amount of Php171,500.00and actual legalexpensesamounting to Php189,253.64.

As proposedby the defense:

• Whether the accusedcan be held liable for violation of Section3(e)ofR.A.No. 3019.

SUMMARY OF TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

Witnessesfor the Prosecution

Arvin P. Hembrador

Arvin P. Hembradoris an AdministrativeAideat the LandRegistrationAuthority."

Throughhis Judicial Affidavit,he said that he was taskedby the Chief of the Central RecordsDivision to appearbeforeProsecutorAgunias on October27, 2017 for the taking of aJudicial Affidavit and to bring the original of LRACircular No.3. He identified the Circular which he was required to presentasExhibit "GG".

3 TSNdated April+, 2018.

· DecisionPeople v.juanito I<.AmpagueySB-16-CRM-0131Page 4 of 38x ---------- --- --- --- -- -- -- ------ ------ ----- -- ---- --- ---- ----- -- x

During the hearing relevant to his testimony, hisstatementwas dispensedwith following the stipulation of theparties on the authenticity and due executionof the documentmentionedin his Judicial Affidavit." On crossexamination,hewas askedif LRACircular No. 3 datedDecember6, 1988hadbeenrepealed,reversed,amendedor modified.>and he repliedthat as far as he knows, therehad beenno changesin the saiddocument.6

Joel Mari Martin M. Bigornia

Joel Mari Martin M. Bigornia is the Chief of DocketDivision of the Land RegistrationAuthority.7

In his Judicial Affidavit, Bigornia was asked if heremembersinvestigatinga verifiedcomplaint filed by Dick LeeOng against accused Ampaguey. He answered in theaffirmative, and said he evaluatedthe documentsmaterial tothe caseas well as askedfor the latter's comment.Thereafter,he .submitted the report to the Division Chief and wassubsequentlyapprovedby Administrator Eulalio DiazIn.

Whenaskedabout the contentionof Ampagueythat therewere already precedents during the term of the previousRegistersof DeedswhereinprovisionalOwnersDuplicateCopyof Titles were allowedto be issued,he replied that this was awrong assumption since a case for reconstitution was·theproper remedy.If Duplicate Certificatesof Titles werelost, theproper proceedingis a petition for re-issuanceof title. He alsosaid that pending reconstitution, voluntary or involuntarytransactions can be provisionally registeredpursuant to LRACircular No. 3; however,this is different if a title was lost (re-issuanceonly) sinceno transactioncan beundertaken prior toa final court order directing the Registryof Deedsto re-issueanewcopy.

On cross,he was askedof a report referredto in question9, particularly page3 of his Judicial Affidavit. Hewas askedif,after the evaluation of the complaint of Dr. Dick LeeOng, hethinks that the action taken by Atty. Ampaguey"proceedingwith the transactionevenwithout the presentationor surrenderof the original duplicate certificate,violatedthe mandateof PD

4 Id., at 9.5 Id., at 10.6 Id., at 11.7 Id., at 12.

DecisionPeople v.juanito K AmpagueyS8-16-CRM-0131Page 5 of 38x ------------- -------- -- --- -- --- -------- --- -- ---- --- ---- ----- -- x

1529." Bigornia replied in the affirmative. When asked if hethinks the action of the accused violated LRA Circular No. 3, healso replied in the affirmative.f

Ellenita G. Gatbunton

Ellenita G. Gatbunton is the Presidential Staff Officer VI atthe Malacanang Records Office at the time of the taking of hertestimony."

In her Judicial Affidavit dated October 17, 2016 and filedon October 21, 2016, she stated that she produced theauthenticated copies of the following documents pursuant to asubpoenaduces tecumdated October 5,2016:

a. Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-62576 (cancelled);

b. Transfer Certificate of Title No. 018-2010001035;

c. Report dated January 2, 2012 (M.C. No. 11-177) submitted byInvestigator Joel Mari Martin M. Bigornia with its annexes;

d. Notice dated December 11, 2012 for ADM Case No. 12-06 withattached Resolution dated August 31, 2012 approved by LRAAdministrator Eulalio C. Diaz III Ordering the dismissal ofJuanito K. Ampaguey for Grave Miscounduct.

On cross, she was asked if the records she brought pertainto those filed by Dr. Dick Lee Ong against accused Ampaguey,and she replied in the affirmative. 10 The defensethen asked if aDeed of Absolute Sale was included in the documents in theLand Registration Authority, and she replied in the negative.t 'There were some queries about the appeal from the LandRegistration Authority decision to the Office of the Presidentdocketed as OP Case No. 13-A-004, but this matter wasstipulated on or admitted by the parties during pre-trial,particularly stipulation number 5.

8 Id.9 TSN dated April 5, 2017, p. 5.10 ld., at 17.11 ld., at 23.

DecisionPeople v. juanito K AmpagueyS8-16-CRM-0131Page 6 of 38x ------- ---- ------------ --- ----- -------- --- ---- -- ------- ------- x

Radii A; Rivera

Atty. Rodil R. Rivera IS the acting Registerof DeedsofBaguioCity.12

In his Judicial AffdiavitdatedOctober7, 2016and filed onOctober21, 2016, he was askedof the processin registeringtransfersof properties,and he stated:

1.The document to be registered,including supportingdocuments, is first submitted to the RegistrationInformation Officer .for checking. The supportingdocumentsare the following;

a. Deedof AbsoluteSale;b. Owner'sDuplicate Copyof the subject;c. BIR CertificateAuthorizing Registration;d. Official Receiptprovingpaymentof transfer tax in the local

government;e. Real Property Tax Clearance issued by the local

government;f. Tax Declaration in the nameof the seller or the registered

property owner;and.g. If any of the parties are representedby another person,a

SpecialPowerof Attorney.

2. The documentsare forwardedto the Entry Clerk whomakesthe Entry of the Contractof Salein the PrimaryEntry Book/Electronic PrimaryEntry Book;

3. There will be an assessment of Registration andInformation TechnologyFeesand an AssessmentFormwill be printed and paid;

4. After payment, the information will be encoded,including the information of the transaction, theparties, the consideration,notarizationdetails, and thethe details of the BIR-CAR;

5. The examiner then examines all the documentssubmittedandthepropercarryoverof the transactions,aswell as the requirementsof orders,if applicable;

6. The transaction is then approvedby the RegisterofDeedswho, as the witness said, only approvesafterseeingthat all the requirementsarecomplete;

12 TSN dated June 5, 2017, p. 4.

DecisionPeople v.juanito K.AmpagueyS8-16-CRM-0131Page 7 of 38x -------------- -- --- --------- ------- ------- ----- ---- --- ----- --- x

7. After approval, the documents are scanned anduploaded in the database;

8. The Owner's Duplicate Copy of the new title will beprinted and then signedby the Registerof Deeds;

9. The old title is automatically cancelled and thecomputer marks the old title as cancelled.

The witness was, then asked what would happen if theOwner'sDuplicate Copyof a title was lost or it cannot be found,and he replied that based on Section 53 in relation to Section109 of Presidential DecreeNo. 1529, the Deed of Salewill notbe registered.

On cross, Rivera was asked how he knew about this case,and he replied that he learned of it only when he was asked totestify on matters relevant to it. 13

Delfiri D. Ong

Delfin D. Ong is a businessman and the father of theprivate complainant in this case.!"

In his Judicial Affidavit dated October6,2016 and filed onOctober 21, 2016, he affirmed that Dick Lee Ong, the privatecomplainant in this case,is his' son. He cameto know RhighinaSamidan as the one who bought his property in Baguio Cityfrom an imposter.

He said at one time, he met with Rhighina. She told himthat she is the registered owner of the property of his son. Shesaid that she was fooled by certain persons in acquiring the'property, particularly one Jennette Ong Buan 15. During thesame meeting, he asked for documents proving the transfer ofthe property under her name and they set another meeting tofurther discuss the matter.

On their subsequent meeting, Rhighina met with thewitness and the latter's lawyer, Atty. Francisco Baraan.Rhighina presented a Special Powerof Attorney, Deed of Sale,

13 Id., at 8.H TSN dated June 6, 2017, p, 4,

15 Other witnessesand documents presentedmentioned of [enette Ongor Iennette OngAbuan

DecisionPeople v.juanito K. AmpagueyS8-16-CRM-0131Page 8 of 38x ----- ------------ --- -------- --- ---- ------ ----- --------- ------ - x

Cancellation and Revocation of Deed of Sale, as well as the newtitle under her name. Rhighina then narrated how she wasfooled in acquiring the subject property, how she was able tocause the registration of the same, as well as proposed to buy itdirectly from Dick Lee Ong to legitimize the acquisition.

The witness was then asked how Rhighina was able toacquire the property, and he replied that an imposter claimingto be Dick Lee Ong was introduced to her by Pcrla Limliman.Then, Rhighina was met by-Jennette Ong Buan who claimed tobe Dick Lee Ong's daughter. He said it was through JennetteOng Buan that Rhighina was able to transfer the title to her ownname, since the former had a Special Power of Attorney as wellas executed an Affidavit of Loss of the Owner's Duplicate Copyof TCT No. T-62576. He also said that during the meeting,Rhighina said that on the bases of the Special Powerof Attorneyand Deedof Salebetween her and Jennette Ong Buan, she "wasable to cause the transfer of the property under her name."

On the proposal to buy the property, the witness said thatRhighina offered the amount of ~19,500,000.00. Consideringthat he believed the amount is commensurate to the value ofthe property, he agreed to the sale. Also, he wanted to avoid thehassle of litigating to reacquire the subject property. The termsof the payment were through postdated checks dated June 20,2010, July 10,2010, and July 20,2010.

However, when the checks were deposited by the witnessin Queens Bank, they bounced for the reason of it being drawnagainst a "Closed Account."

Thereafter, the witness approached Atty. Baraan who saidthat he will find a way to recover the subject property. Due toAtty. Baraan's appointment to a position in government, thematter was eventually transferred to Atty. Nolan Evangelistawho filed cases against Rhighina, Cooperative Bank of Benguet,and the accused Ampaguey.

During cross examination, the witness was asked if heknew Rhighina Samidan, and he answered in the affirmative.t=He added that they met the first time in Jesus of NazareneHospital, and talked about the property covered by TCT No. T-62576 which was in the name of Samidan. He was subsequentlyshown a title and deed of sale executed by his son, Dick Lee

16 ld., at 6.

DecisionPeople v.juanito K. AmpagueySB-16-CRM-0131Page 9 of 38x -- --- -------- ------ ---- ----- ---- --- ------- ------ -------------~ x

Ong, in her favor, as well as a special power of attorney givenby Dick Lee Ong to Samidan at the office of his lawyer, Atty.Francisco Baraan.!?

Referring to the Deed of Absolute Sale marked as Exhibit"E", the witness was asked if he knew if the amount stated isP800,000.00, and he replied he did not since he only noticedthe signatures of Dick LeeOng and Samidan therein. 18

The defense then asked the witness if it was his and DickLee Ong's mutual decision to sell the property, and he repliedthat it was, and with the advice of their lawyer, they executed adeed of sale sometime in 2010 in favor of Samidan. He saidfurther that he was.present during the execution of the saiddocument.i? The defense then read the provision of the saiddocument stating that the consideration is ;P19,500,000.00. Heaffirmed the provision, as well as affirmed when asked by thedefenseif he agreedto sell the said property in that amount.w

About the payment for the ;P19,500,000.00, the witnesssaid that it was divided into three (3)checks, which he identifiedas Exhibit "J". Later on, the defenseasked to whom the checkswere named to, and he replied it was to his son, Dick LeeOng.>'

The parties then stipulated on the authenticity and dueexecution of Exhibit "I", as well as to the checks marked asExhibits "J". to "J-2", 22 including their dorsal and frontportion.s-The parties also stipulated that the same checks weredeposited at Queen Bank, Dagupan Branch.?+

The witness was asked, as a final question, if he knew thatthere were three other entities that filed cases against theCooperativeBank of Benguet and Rhighina Samidan. He repliedin the affirmative, saying that he did not know what happenedto these cases subsequently.w

17 Id., at 12.

18 Id., at 14.19 Id., at 15.20 Id., at 16.21 Id., at 19.22 Id., at 24.23 Id., at 26.24 Id., at 26.25 Id., at 29.

DecisionPeople v.juanito K AmpagueySB-16-CRM -0131Page 10 of 38x --- ------------------- --------- -------- ---- ------ ------------- x

Frederic Albert Anthony C. Cartes

FredericAlbert Anthony C. Cartesis the RecordsOfficer ofthe Registryof Deedsof Baguio City.26

In his Judicial Affidavit dated October 13,2016 and filedon October 21, 2018, he said; in relation to his holding of theposition of records officer, he tenderedthe following documentspursuant to the subpoenaof SpecialProsecutorAgunias:

a. Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-62576 (cancelled);b. Transfer Certificate of Title No. 018-2010001035;c. Affidavit of Loss executed by Jennette Ong Abuan annotated on

Transfer Certificate of Title No. 018-2010001035 on April 6,2010;

d. Deed of Absolute Sale of a Parcel of Land dated April 13, 2010including all its attachments;

e. Special Power of Attorney dated August 28, 2007;f. Affidavit of Adverse Claim dated April 27,2010;g. Real Estate Mortgage in favor of Cooperative Bank of Benguet

annotated on Transfer Certificate of Title No. 018-2010001035on April 15,2010;

h. Notice of Adverse Claim annotated on Transfer Certificate of TitleNo. 018-2010001035 on June 15,2010;

1. Cancellation of Adverse Claim annotated on Transfer Certificateof Title No. 018-2010001035 on June 15,2010;

J. Amendmen t of Mortgage annotated on Transfer Certificate of TitleNo. 018-2010001035 on June 12,2010;

k. Affidavit of Adverse Claim annotated on Transfer Certificate ofTitle No. 018-2010001035 on November 15,2010;

1. Affidavit dated June 15,2010 executed by Rhighina Samidan;m. Affidavit dated September 17, 2010 executed by Rhighina

Samidan;n. Affidavit dated November 12, 2010 executed by Rhighina

Samidan;o. Letter-Authorization dated January 26, 2011 signed by Rhighina

Samidan;p. Letter dated January 26, 2011 regarding the reinstatement of

TCT No. T-62576;q. Certificate of Sale in favor of Cooperative Bank of Benguet;r. Final Certificate of Sale dated January 13, 2013;s. Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership in favor of Cooperative

Bank of Benguet.

He stated that he has possessionof the original copiesofletters b, d, g, j, q, r, and s above.He only had the vault copyofExhibit "C" or TCTNo.T-62576. For TCTNo. 018-2010001035,he has the Owner'sDuplicate Copy.For Exhibit "H", the original

26 TSN dated September 11, 2017, p. 3.

DecisionPeoplev.juanito K. AmpagueySB-16-CRM-0131Page11 of 38x ------------- ---- -- ------ --- --- ---- ---- --- --- ---- -- --- --- --- -- x

Affidavit of Adverse Claim of Dr. Dick Lee Ong, he said the.physical copy could not be found in the files. He was able to find

. its electronic copy, since it was immediately scanned anduploaded in the database upon presentation.

As for the letter marked as Exhibit "L" dated June 14,2010, he only has a photocopy. When asked about the Affidavitdated June 15,2010 executed by Rhighina Samidan, Affidavitdated September 17,2010, Affidavit dated November 12,2010,Letter-Authorization dated January 26, 2011, all executed byRhighina Samidan, as well as the letter dated January 26,2011regarding the reinstatement of TCT No. T-62576 which aremarked as Exhibits "P-2" "P-5" "P-8" "w" "X" and "DD" he, , , " ,replied that the only original document he had at hand is theAffidavit of Adverse Claim dated November 15,2010 marked asExhibit "P". All other documents are photocopies. For Exhibits"W", "X" and "DD", he said they cannot be found despite effortsto locate them.

Finally he attested that Exhibits "C" "D" "E" series "F", '" ,"L" "M" series "N" "0" "P" series and "R" "S" "T" "U" and, '" , """V" series were certified true copies existent at the Registry ofDeedof Baguio City.

During his testimony, the parties stipulated on thefollowing:

1. That the witness is presently the records officer of theRegistry of Deedsof Baguio City;

2. That as part of his duties, he has custody of physicaldocuments annotated and entered in the title;

3. That he has custody of the originals of the followingdocuments: Exhibits Eta E-17, F, M to M-5, N, 0, P, R, S,T, U, and V;

4. That he has the original vault copy of Exhibit 6, thatdespite diligent efforts, he cannot locate the copy of ExhibitH, W, X and DD;

5. That he cannot produce the original Exhibit L, P-2, P-5, P-8, since the copies submitted to their office, as receivingcopies, are photocopies;

DecisionPeople v. juanito K. Ampaguey

SB-16-CRM-0131Page 12 of 38x -- -------- --- ------ --- -- ---- ------- ---- ------- -- --- --- ---- ---- x

6. That he will identify documents relative thereto and testifyas to the other material allegations.??

The parties also stipulated on the due execution of Cortes'Judicial Affidavit.i"

On cross, the witness was asked if he has personalknowledge of this case, and he replied in the negative, statingthat he was made a witness for being the mere custodian ofdocuments enumerated above.e?

Rodrigo D. Detablan

Rodrigo O. Oetablan is an Administrative Aide VI assignedat the Records Section, Office of the Ombudsman-Luzon. In his.Judicial Affdiavit dated October 14, 2016 filed on October 21,2016, he testified on Exhibit "FF", and attested on the receiptof the Counter-Affidavit of Respondent Ampaguey by the Officeof the Ombudsman-Luzon.

Felimon L. Marcelino

Felimon L. Marcelino, Jr. is the Administrative Officer andOIC-Oeputy Registry of Deeds of Baguio City at the timematerial to this case up to the taking of his testimony.v?

In his Judicial Affidavit dated November 2, 2016 andreceived on November 4, 2016, he identified Exhibits "C", "0","E" and series "F" "H" "L" "M" to "P" "R" to "V" and "DD" as, , " , ,electronic copies of the documents on file with the Registry ofDeeds of Baguio City.

He said that Exhibit "DD" or the Affidavit of Loss datedApril 6, 2010, was presented to him ahead of Exhibits "C", "E"and series "F" "N" and "0" based on the date of annotation on, , , .

the Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-62576 and carried over toTransfer Certificate of Title No. 018-2010001035. Afterexamination of this Exhibit "DD", he said he recommended thedenial of the registration because there was no Special Power ofAttorney given to the affiant by the registered owner.

27 Id., at 4.28 Id., at 1l.29 Id., at 14.30TSNdated September 11, 2017.

DecisionPeople v.]uanito K. AmpagueySB-16-CRM -0131Page 13 of 38x ------------- --- --- ---- --- --- -- ---- ------ ---- ------ ------- ---- x

However,he said that the Register of Deedsapproved theregistration of the Affidavit of Loss, identifying Exhibits "C", "E","F", "N" and "0" as the relevant documents. He then said thatupon examining these documents, he observed from theAssessment Form, Payment Form, and the RegistrationApplication Form, that there were no Duplicate Certificate ofTitle submitted. He personally verified the same and confirmedthe missing document.

Thereafter, he made a handwritten notation on theAssessment Form and Payment Order stating the fact that herecommended the transaction be denied. He simultaneouslyencodedhis remarks in the computer database.

The witness then said that the accused approved theprovisional registration of the property despite having norequest for the same.

After a while, a Real Estate Mortgage between the newregistered owners and the Cooperative Bank of Benguet wasregistered. To this transaction, he recommended registration.When asked why he recommended dissimilarly to his earlierrecommendation, he replied that the first recommendation wasalready overruled by Ampaguey and that it was already a factthat a new title had already been issued.

Thereafter, the Real Estate Mortgage, Certificate of Sale,Notice of Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage,Final Certificate of Sale, as well as Affidavit of Consolidation ofOwnership were presented to him for registration. Herecommended denial of the registration of these documentssince there was an existing Notice of Adverse Claim datedNovember 17,2010.

During his cross examination, he was confronted withquestion number 28 in his Judicial Affidavit, wherein he statedthat there was no letter-request for provisional registration. Thedefensethen asked what he meant by his answer in questionnumber 29, where he said he recommended the provisionalregistration on the vault copy of the title. He replied that thereis another document which was annotated aside from the Deedof Sale marked as Exhibit "0". After the notation, the Affidavitof Loss,Deedof Absolute Sale,and SpecialPowerof Attorney of

DecisionPeople v.juanito K.AmpagueyS8-16=CRM-0131Page 14of 38x --- ----- -- --- --------- --- -------------- --- ------ ----- -- -- --- -- x

Jeanette Ongwere presentedto him. Thereafter, he affirmed theissuance of a new title, TCT No. 018-2010001035.31

The witness further said that the encoder made the title,one Maria Jesusa Villanueva. Thereafter, the copy of the titlewas sent to an examiner and then an encoder.He said he founddefectsin it, in that the duplicate Owner's Copy of the title wasnot presented. He indicated the finding in the assessmentform.V

Marcelino was then asked if he recommended provisionalregistration, and he replied in the negative.33 He said herecommended it being put on "hold".34 When asked if he sawthe title, he replied he saw it in the database.v> It was confirmedlater that he did not seethe duplicate hard copyof the title then,and it was the first time he saw the same when he made hisJudicial Affidavit pertinent to this case.v'

Considering that the title of the document was printedwith his recommendation of putting it on hold, the witness wasasked if he objeted to it. He said that he did not have time to re-'examine it since it was' already approved by the Register ofDeeds.37

Moving to a related point, the defenseaskedMarcelino whyhe recommendedthe registration of the real estate mortgageonthe title but denied the registration of the Certificate of Saledated December 15, 2011. He merely affirmed the fact ofaffirmative recommendation, and stated that the one whoapproved the annotation was Atty. Felipe, the one whosucceededAtty. Ampaguey.w

For the annotation of adverse claims, he said there weretwo (2). He said he approved the first, which was made by DickLee Ong.39 This was also cancelled in June 2010, which wasprompted by the letter of Atty. Baraan stating that his client and

31 Id., at 14.32 Id., at 17.33 Id., at 19.34 Id., at 21.35 Id., at 23.36 Id., at 24.37 Id., at 27.38 Id., at 31.39 Id., at 32.

DecisionPeople v.]uanito K. AmpagueyS8-16-CRM-0131Page 15 of 38x ------- --- ------ ------- -- ------ -------- ------------------ --- -'- x

the Samidans have "arrived at an agreement [pertaining to] theproperty in question.t'"?

When asked if he is aware of the Deed of Absolute Saledated April 2010, he said he was not. Upon asking of othertransactions, he said he is aware of another, the Notice of LisPendenswith EPEB 22001976.41 He clarified later that he doesnot know the details of the transaction, but merely saw thesame in the title.f- When asked who signed the approval of theregistration of this Lis Pendens,he replied it was Atty. GuerreroFelipe.43

Felipe B.. Guanzo

Felipe B. Guanzo is the Assistant Land RegistrationExaminer of the Register of Deedsof Baguio City.?+

In his Judicial Affidavit dated October 12, 2016 and filedon October 21,2016, he said he was Administrative Aide III inthe Registry of Deedsof Baguio since March 2003.

When asked if he remembers one Rhighina Samidan, hereplied that he met her with oneTessieDagasenwhen she askedfor the requirements of transfers of titles. In the next couple ofweeks, Rhighina returned to the Registry of Deeds with hishusband, Ferdinand Samidan.

During the subsequent weeks of transferring the subjecttitle, Rhighina met with the Entry Clerk, Divina Abenes.Guanzosaid that Abenes doubted the authenticity of the Owner'sDuplicate Copy shown to her. When Guanzo examined the saidduplicate copy, he also said that he thought the document wasfake, "because the color of the paper is different from authentictitles." He said that when the said fake title was spotted, it wascaptured and put inside a vault. Thereafter, the witness said hecalled up Conchita Jouet whom he met previously. Conchitaasked him who presented the fake title and when he said it wasthe spouses Samidan, she said that she will go to the Registryof Deedsimmediately since they are her "pamangkins."

40 Id., at 36.041 Id, at 40.42 Id., at 43.43 Id.

44 TSN dated June 5, 2018.

DecisionPeople v. juanito K AmpagueyS8-16-CRM-0131Page 16 of 38x ---------------- ------- -------- ------------ ----- -------------- x

Upon arrival, Conchita talked to the Samidans. The dayafter, a certain Dante Bernardo went to the office and causedthe registration of the Deed of Absolute Sale of two parcels ofland which covered the land under the name of Dick Lee Ong.The witness said Bernardo wanted to cause the registration ofthe unregistered land only. Hethen asked the Deputy Registerof Deeds, Jose Vicente Angeles, if the document is registrablesince the intention of Bernardo is only the registration of theuntitled land and not the one subject of the owner's duplicatecopy which was confiscated. Mr. Angeles said that it wasregistrable.

After severalweeks, Rhighina and Dagasenreturned to theoffice and explained they were fooled since they already paid forthe value of the land. The witness advised them to transact withthe true registered owner. Samidan replied that she learned thatDick Lee Ong was in China, but his daughter, .Jenriette OngBuan, was in Baguio. She said that she already talked toJennette Ong Buan and that the only way for Jennette to goback to China is to sell the property. He then said to Samidanthat if the title was lost, then they should file an Affidavit of Lossand file a Petition in Court for reconstitution. He then referredthem to Ampaguey.

The witness then learned that the title printer, Art Padlan',printed a Transfer Certificate of Title covering the subjectproperty in favor of Rhighina and Ferdinand. He later learnedthat the subject property was mortgaged with the CooperativeBank of Benguet. He further said that on another day, Dagasenwent to the office and informed him that the real owner is DickLeeOng who was in Pangasinan and that he has a copy of TCTNo. T-62576. He told her to fix the matter already sinceAmpaguey had already issued the new title to Samidan withoutthe owner's duplicate title.

Later on, Sarnidan and Atty. Baraan met at the office ofAmpaguey. The Owner's Duplicate Copy of the TransferCertificate of Title No. T-62576 was presented, as well as theDeed of Absolute Sale, and the Cancellation of Adverse Claim.

The witness said that the Register of Deeds of Baguio Cityat that time was accused Juanito Ampaguey.

The defense asked the witness if he knew RhighinaSamidan, and he replied in the affirmative. He said she met with

DecisionPeople v. ]uanito K.AmpagueyS8-16-CRM -0131Page 17 of 38x --- ---- --- --------- ---- -------- ----- ------ ------ --- ---- ---- --- x

her sometime on or before April 2010 with one Dagasen.:" Hesaid she asked him what are the requirements for the transferof titles, and he gaveher a list. Samidan did not present to himthe documents in the list. Thereafter, he referred Samidan andDagasen to Ampaguey, who was still the Register of Deeds ofBaguio City.46

Upon being asked further on the transaction, he said thatafter the conversation with the Register of Deeds, there was a"transfer made of the title involved." He further stated that he"came to know in the computer that after their conversation,probably a day or days after that, there was already [a] transfermade of the Transfer Certificate of Title of Dick Lee Ong toSamidan."47He said that he learned of these thing through oneMr. Padlan, the Printer in the office.s" Upon being asked further,he replied that the transfer involved a sale of the land with TCTNo. 62576 "in the name of certain Dick Lee Ong in favor ofRhighina Samidan x x x."49

When asked further on his knowledge insofar as this caseis concerned, he replied that the Samidans mortgaged theproperty to a cooperative bank. He came to know of thetransaction since a bank employee,Jay Pudos, cameto registerthe document.50 He referred Pudos to the Entry Clerk, and hehad no participation to the transaction thereafter.51

The witness then said that after the release of the titlewhere the mortgagewas annotated, the companion of Samidan,Dagasen, called by phone that they already found the realowner, and that they are in the process of negotiation. Hereplied to Dagasen to "fix the matter because Atty. Ampagueyalready issued a new title in favor of Samidan without theowner's duplicate of title presented. 52 He said that theconclusion of the negotiation is that the lawyer of Dick LeeOngas well as the Samidans cameto an agreementto surrender theowner's duplicate copy of the title to Atty. Ampaguey. He saidthat the Samidans and Atty. Baraan arrived at the office andsurrendered the owner's copy of the title together with the

45 Id., at 12.46 Id., at 13.47 Id., at 15.48 Id.49 Id., at 18.50 Id., at 24.51 Id., at 25.52 Id.,

DecisionPeople v.juanito K AmpagueySB-16-CRM-0131Page 18 of 38x ----- -------- --- --- ---- -- --- --- ---- ------- --------- --- --- ----- x

cancellation of the adverse claim and an original copy of theDeedof Sale.53

After a few weeks, Atty. Baraan called the witness tellingthe latter not to cancel the title (the one surrendered by DickLeeOng)becausehe "has to get it back."54He said that the titlewas not cancelled, and that Samidan and Baraan went to hisoffice since the check paid by Samidan bounced.

Dick Lee Ong

Dick Lee Ong is the private complainant in this case andthe Medical Director of Jesus of NazareneMedical Hospital.t=

In his Judicial Affidavit, the witness was asked why hefiled the complaint affidavit which initiated this case, and hereplied that it is becausethe accusedcausedthe transfer ofTCTNo. 018-2010001035under Rhighina Samidan's name, withouthis knowledge"on the basis of spurious and falsified documentsand without requiring the surrender of the owner's duplicatecopy which was in [his] possession."When asked how he cameto know of the transfer, he replied that one Tessie Dagasenintroduced herself to him in April 2010. Dagasen said shewanted to help her sister, Rhighina, who was victimized by animpostor who sold to her a land in Baguio City. Dagasen saidthey became suspicious of the identity of the registered ownerand they found out the person they thought was Dick Lee Ongwas an impostor.

Upon learning of this, he was shocked since the Owner'sDuplicate ofTCT No. 62576 was with him and the said propertywas not sold nor mortgaged. He told Dagasen that he had toinform his father, Delfin Ong, since he was not familiar with theproperty and directed her to comeback with Rhighina to clarifyand discuss the matter.

Thereafter, after about a week, Rhighina and Dagasencameto where he worked, Jesus of NazareneGeneral Hospital.When they arrived, they were entertained by his father, DelfinOng. Dagasen and Rhighina presented several documents andagreed on another date to meet with their lawyer, Atty.Francisco Baraan. They also narrated that a new Transfer

53 Id., at 26.54 Id., at 28.

55 TSN dated June 4, 2018.

DecisionPeople v.]uanito K.AmpagueySB-16-CRM -0131Page 19 of 38x ------- --- --- ------ ---- -- --- --- -------- -------- ---------- ---- - x

Certificate of Title was issued in the name of SpousesFerdinandand Rhighina Samidan, that they learned that the property wasfor sale from a certain Perla Litnliman who said she was thehousemaid of Dick Lee Ong, and that the same Limliman saidthat the property was mortgaged to one "Cathy" forPhP377,000.00.

He then instructed Atty. Baraan to verify the status of theproperty, and it was found out that TCT No. 62576 wascancelled. The witness then filed a Notice of Adverse Claim onApril 18, 2010.

During the next meeting, at Lenox Hotel, Dagupan City,Atty. Baraan was present as well as Rhighina. During themeeting, Rhighina said she was fooled twice in acquiring theproperty, first by an impostor claiming to be Dick Lee Ongintroduced to her by Limliman, and second by Jennette OngAbuan who claimed to be the daughter of Dick Lee Ong. Theimpostor Dick LeeOng had a daughter by the name of JennetteOng Abuan who claimed she had a SpecialPowerof Attorney tosell the property, and the Cancellation or Revocationof DeedofAbsolute Sale of Two Parcelsof land dated April 14, 2010.

The witness was then shown Exhibits "F" and "G", and heobservedthat the signatures therein are not his as well as hisaddress being a former address. Exhibit "G", he narrated, is aContract of Sale dated March 20, 2010 involving the sameproperty. However, it was revoked due to lack of considerationand Exhibit "E" is the Contract of Salewhich becamethe basisof the cancellation of TCT No. T-62576 and was presented byRhighina to him and the Register of Deeds of Baguio City. Hesaid all the documents are fictitious and fraudulent becausehehas no daughter named Jennette Ong Buan, the signaturestherein are not his, and the IDs attached are of different people.

When asked why they consideredsubsequently selling theproperty to Rhighina, he said that he believedin goodfaith thather representations were true and that she was likewise avictim. He also wanted to avoid litigation. The Contract to Sellwas entered on June 14, 2010 (Exhibit "I") in the amount ofPhP19,500,000.00 divided into three installments throughpostdated checks (Exhibits "J" to "J-2").

Due to the sale, the witness submitted a letter dated June14, 2010 cancelling the adverseclaim dated April 28, 2010 to

DecisionPeople v.juanito K. AmpagueyS8-16-CRM -0131Page 20 of 38x -- ----- --- ------------ --- ------ ------- ---- -------------- ------ x

the Registry of Deeds of Baguio City (Exhibit "L") as well as anaffidavit from Rhighina (Exhibit "P"). However, the postdatedchecks issued by Rhighina bounced, due to the account beingclosed. He then asked Atty. Baraan to go the Registry of Deedsof Baguio and asked for the reinstatement of the title. He thensaid Ampaguey refused to reinstate the subject title, and toldthem to file a caseto annul the new title. His father, Delfin Ong,then called Rhighina and asked for another affidavit to besubmitted to the Registry of Deedsfor the reinstatement of theold title (Exhibit "P-5"). The affidavit was then submitted to theRegistry of Deeds, which refused to reinstate the old title.Another more detailed affidavit was issued by Rhighina, and theRegistry of Deeds still refused to reinstate the old title Exhibit"P-7"), to add the detail that the property was already mortgagedto the Cooperative Bank of Benguet in the amount ofPhP15,000,000.00. It appears that the property was alsoforeclosed as could be seen in the Notice of Extra-JudicialForeclosure of Real Estate Mortgage, Real Estate Mortgage,Amendment of Real Estate Mortgage, Certificate of Sale, andAffidavit of Consolidation of Ownership (Exhibits "M", and "R"to "V").

The witness then wrote Cooperative Bank of Benguet toinform them that the spouses Samidan used a void title toobtain a loan from the bank (Exhibit "Q"). He also submitted aletter dated January 26,2011 prepared and signed by Samidanauthorizing him to cause the annotation of another letterbearing the same date similarly prepared and signed by her.

Finally, he said that he filed another caseof Declaration ofNullity of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 010-2010001035 aswell as administrative case against Ampaguey in the LandRegistration Authority.

On cross, the defensedirected the witness to TCT No. T-62576. He said that the first time he learned that the title wastransferred to the spousesFerdinand and Rhighina Samidan inApril 2010,56he was allegedly approached by Tessie Dagasenwho talked to him becauseshe had "a problem."

After about a week, the witness met with Dagasen andRhighina Samidan at the hospital. During the meeting, heasked Dagasen to show proof that she bought the propertyalready. She showed a Deed of Sale from one Jennette Buan,

56 Id., at 13.

DecisionPeople v.juanito K.AmpagueyS8-16-CRM-0131Page 21 of 38x --------------------------------------------- ----------------- x

who was engagedwith Rhighina Sarrridari.>? She told her thatshe was victimized by a certain group of perpetrators claimingto be Dick Lee Ong, an impostor, who was introduced to themby PerlaLimliman.s" He said he did not believethe story at first,but was shown a Special Powerof Attorney to represent him inthe transaction. 59 He said that he did not agree to the saidSpecialPowerof Attorney in the past.v?

During the secondmeeting, Atty. Baraan was present. Headvised the witness to annotate an adverse claim on TCT No.018-2010001035, which was clarified as Annex "D". 61

Furthermore, during the secondmeeting, the parties agreedtoenter into a contract of sale. When asked if he intended to sellit, he answered in the affirmative, stating that it was under hisfather's name although he is the owner. 62

The witness was then 'confrontedwith the Deed of Sale inthe amount of PhP19,500,000.00.63He affirmed that he waspaid three postdated checks, which were receivedby his fatherwith his presence.v+

Subsequently, Atty. Baraan annotated an adverse claimdated April 28, 2010. Though· quite confusing in thequestioning, the defense was able to establish that after thecancellation of the lien with number 2010001967 dated June15, 2010, and on the next day, the sale was filed with theRegisterof Deeds.v>

Thewitness was then confronted with Civil CaseNo. 7443-R, lodged in the RegionalTrial Court of Baguio City in 2010 forthe declaration of nullity of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-018-2010001035. It appearsthat the casewas filed by Dick LeeOng, against Ferdinand Samidan, Rhighina Samidan,Cooperative Bank of Benguet, Jennette Ong Abuan, JuanitoKibatay Ampaguey and Philip Doe. However, Jennette OngAbuan was subsequently dropped.66 The decision of theRegional Trial Court favored Dick LeeOng, although an appeal

57 Id., at 18.58 Id.59 Id., at 19.60 Id., at 20.61 Id., at 22.62 Id., at 25.63 Id., at 26.64 Id., at 27.65 ld., at 28.66 Id., at 32.

DecisionPeople v.fuanito K. AmpagueyS8-16-CRM -0131Page 22 of 38x --- ------- --- ------ --- ---- ----- -- -- --- ----- ----- ----- ---- --- -- x

is still pending with the Court of Appeals.>"Upon being askedwhy the Register of Deeds of Baguio did not comply with theOrder of the Regional Trial Court to declare null and void TCTNo. T-0182010001035, he replied .he did not know.v" Whenasked if he knows if the Register of Deedswas held liable in thedecision, he replied in the affirmative, reading a portion of thesubject decision.v?

Pertaining to the administrative complaint, the witnessaffirmed that the casewas docketed as Administrative CaseNo.12-067°, which was already decided upon.i Though the witnesssaid that he did not know if it is still pending, the counsel forthe defensetestified on his behalf that it is still periding."!

The witness was then asked if he indicated in Ithecomplaints he filed, of which there were three including theinstant case, that the three (3) checks for the payment of theproperty in question bounced. The relevant portions in the saidcomplaints were then pointed out."?

WITNESS FOR THE DEFENSE

AccusedJuanito K. Ampaguey

In his Judicial Affidavit dated October 27, 2016, JuanitoK. Ampaguey said that he met the spouses Samidan andJennette Ong Abuan sometime in April 6, 20 ID at the Registryof Deeds in Baguio City where they presented to him a deed ofsale, affidavit of loss, special power of attorney and a petitionfor issuance of new title for purposes of registration. 73 They alsopresented to him TCT No. 62576, the BIR Certificate ofRegistration and the transfer tax payrnerit.?"

He said that after receiving the documents, they werepresented to the cashier for payment. 75 After, they weretransmitted to the examiner, Felimon Marcelino, Jr. then to the

67 Id., at 35.68 Id., at 36.69 Id., at 40.70 Id., at 44.71 Id., at 44-45.72 Id., at 52-54.73 TSN dated August 28,2018 (p.m.), p. 16.74 Id., at 18.75 Id., at 20.

DecisionPeoplev.juanito K.AmpagueyS8-16-CRM-0131Page 23 of 38x -- -------- --- --- ----- ---- --- --- ------ -- --- -- ---- -,------- --- -- x

Deputy Registerof Deeds,Atty. VicenteJoseAngeles.Lastly, thedocuments were submitted to his office. Upon receipt, hetransferred them to the person in chargeof preparing the title.?"After, the examiner checked the title and this was thensubmitted to the Deputy Register of Deeds for his initial.According to the accused, he allowed the issuance of the newtitle because all the documents were presented, the fees werepaid and there was precedencemade by previous Registers ofDeeds."?Previous Registersof Deedsissued titles evenwithoutthe presentation of the owner's duplicate. In this case, the titlewas transferred to Mrs. Sarnidan.?".

On June 14,2010, Atty. Francisco Baraan, lawyer of DickLee Ong, went to his office and presented to him a letterindicating that Dick LeeOng had a favorable arrangement withthe spouses Samidan involving the subject property andrequested that the Adverse Claim annotated in the title bewithdrawn. 79

In his Judicial Affidavit, witness said that Atty. Baraanalso gave him a copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated April13, 2010 executed by both parties. Thereafter, he was servedwith summons by the RTC Branch 7, Baguio City regarding acivil casefiled by Dick LeeOng against him, spouses Samidan,Cooperative Bank of Benguet. Jenette Ong Abuan and Philip"Doe"were dropped as defendants.

During the cross, he said that he was appointed Registerof Deedsin 2003 and remained as such until his retirement in2013.80

He said that it was not the first time that an instrumentwas presented to his office for registration involving TCT No. T-62576.81 In March 2010, his office captured a fake title whenseveral persons attempted to register a deed of absolute saleallegedly signed by a certain Dick Lee Ong in favor of spousesSamidan.s?But according to the witness, he assumed this timethat it was lost becauseTCT T-62576 was the vault copy fromhis office.s''

76 ld., at 21.77 ld., at 22.78 Id., at 23.79 Id., at 24.80 ld., at 32.81 Id., at 33.82 Id.83 ld., at 34.

DecisionPeople v. [uanito K. AmpagueyS8-16-CRM-0131Page 24 of 38x ---- --------- ------ --- --- --- --- ---- ------- ------ --~---- ------- x

When asked if the examination, the payment of fees, theentry in the electronic primary entry book are reflected in thecomputer system in his office, he answered in the affirmative.This system is called the LARES,Land Registration System.Allthe actions taken are reflected in the LARES.84

When shown Exhibit HH, witness affirmed that examinerFelimon Marcelino recommended the denial after examinationof the affidavit of loss.R5 When shown Exhibit 11 or the Deed ofAbsolute Salewhich is a computer printout from the LARES,heaffirmed that there was a recommendation for denial yet heapproved the same.86 When presented the Special Power ofAttorney which was presented along with the Deed of AbsoluteSale,he affirmed that the technical description appearing in theformer document doesnot refer to the documents subject of theDeed of Absolute Sale. Witness explained that the locationtherein is residence section only and it is not the sameproperty.s?In this SPA, the area mentioned was 245 squaremeters while in the Deed of Absolute Sale, it is 755 squaremeters.

He said that when Mrs. Samidan went to his office, heknew that she wanted to obtain a loan of PhP15million from theCooperativeBank of Benguet. He later learned that the petitionwas dismissed.s"

When asked what he meant by precedencefrom previousRegister of Deeds, he explained that the former Register ofDeeds, Atty. Ernesto Diomampo, allowed the issuance of titleeven without the presentation of the owner's duplicate copy.This has been the practice of his office.89

Witness said that since the system is computerized, oncethe title is cancelled and he approves the same, a new title isautomatically issued and printed out. The date of registration isthe date of the entry in the electronic primary entry book, notthe date of approval by the witnces.?"

When asked if he learned that the owner's duplicatecertificate of title was actually in possession of Dick Lee Ong

84 ld., at 35.85 Id., at 37.86 Id., at 38.87 Id., at 39.88 ld., at 40-41.89 Id., at 41-42.90 Id., p. 42.

DecisionPeople v.[uanito K. Ampaguey

S8-16-CRM-0131Page 25 of 38x ---- --- --------- --------- ---- ------ ---- --- -- ----- ----- --- --- -- x

only after he issued the new title, he answered In theaffirmative. This new TCT' cannot be cancelled motu propnowithout a court order.?!

In the re-direct examination, he recalled the incident whena title was presented to be a copy ofTCT T-62576 and which hisoffice captured. He said that such copy was a duplicate originalwhich means it had the marking of the owner's duplicate copy.He cannot remember the first time it was presented to him. Buthe said it was not presented by Mrs. Samidan but by otherpersons.v- This happened before the presentation of the Deed ofSale and the Affidavit of Loss. When such copy or fake title waspresented to them, they confiscated it in accordance with theMemorandum Circular of the Department of Justice so that itwill no longer be used for other purposes.v- He clarified that theduplicate copy he described earlier was fake.?+

On re-cross, he said that in order to issue an owner'sduplicate original, a petition for issuance of a new owner'sduplicate must be filed before the Regional Trial Court.v" Hisoffice requires that the petition be received by the Clerk ofCourt. In this case, a duplicate original of the petition waspresented to his office which had a stamp received by the Officeof the Clerk of Court. His office no longer requires the receipt ofthe filing fee.?>His office no longer verifies if the petition hasbeen granted or denied and by the time that they are furnishedwith a copy of the decision, a new owner's copy based on thepetition had already been issued. He said that if the court deniesthe petition, his office will then require the new owner to file acancellation of the title."? In this case,when he learned that thecase was dismissed, he did not cause the annotation orregistration of the dismissal of the petition reasoning that theyhave no authority to motu proprio annotate.i"

When asked if he verified and inquired why the SPAwasin favor of one Jenette Ong while the one who executed the Deedof Sale was one Janet Ong Abuan and in the next page, itmentioned a Jenette Ong Abuan, he said that he overlooked anddid not notice these discrepancies. When asked if he looked for

91 Id., at 43.92 Id., at 45.93 Id., at 46-47.94 Id., at 47.95 Id., at 49.96 Id., at 50.97 Id., at 51.98 Id., at 52.

DecisionPeople v.juanito K.AmpagueyS8-16-CRM-0131Page26 of 38x --- ------------- ------ --- ---------- ---- ----------- ---- --- ---- - x

a morerecentpowerof attorneysincethe onepresentedto himwas already three years old, he answeredin the negative.99

Whenaskedhowmany timeshehad allowedthe registrationofa DeedofAbsoluteSaleof a parcelof land without requiring thepresentationof the owner'scopyof the title, he said that it washis first time. Hesaidthat hedid not knowhowmanytimestheprecedenthe mentionedhappenedbut he knows only of onecase.lOO He said that hejust relied on the precedentinsteadoffollowingthe law.!"!

SUMMARY OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Both the prosecutionand the defensealso submitted Inevidencetheir documentaryexhibits,as follows.w?

A. For the prosecution

Exhibits Brief Description

A and series Complaint-affidavit dated August 4, 2011 consisting of 20pagesincluding the coverpageand the annexesthereto

B Photocopyof Owner'sduplicate copy of Transfer Certificateof Title No.T-62576

C Electronic copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-62576with the stamp "Cancelled"on everypage

D True electroniccopyofTransfer CertificateofTitle No.T-018-2010001035

E to E-17 DeedofAbsoluteSaleofa Parcelof Land datedApril 13,2010betweenDick LeeOng representedby Jennette Ong Abuanand Spouses Ferdinand B. Samidan and Rhighina G.Samidan,with relateddocuments

F SpecialPowerof Attorney datedAugust 28, 2007G Photocopyof cancellation or revocationof Deedof Absolute

Saleof TwoParcelsofland datedApril 14, 2010H Affidavit of AdverseClaim dated April 27, 2010 executedby

Dick LeeOngI Photocopyof Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 14, 2010

betweenFerdinand G. Samidanand Rhighina SamidanandDr. Dick LeeOng

J to J-2 Photocopy of RCBC Checks in the amount ofPhP19,500,000.00payableto the Order of Dr. Dick LeeOng

K to K-2 QueenBank Debit AdviceL Letter dated June 14, 2010 addressedto Atty. Juanito K.

Ampaguey,Registerof Deeds,Baguio CityM to M-5 Notice of Extrajudicial Foreclosureof Real Estate Mortgage

with related documentsN Registration and Application Form, with presenter's name

Rhiahina G. Samidan0 Assessment and Payment Order Form with EPEB No.

2010001199datedApril 14,2010P Affidavit of AdverseClaim dated November15, 2010

99 Id., at 53-54.100 Id., at 55.101 Id., at 56.102 Pre-Trial Order datedApril 3, 2017,

DecisionPeoplev.]uanito K AmpagueySB-16-CRM-0131Page27 of 38x ---------------- --------- --- ------ ------- ---- ------ --- ---- --- - x

P-2 Affidavit datedJune 15,2010 by Rhizhina SamidanP-5 Affidavit dated September17,2010P-8 Affidavit of Rhighina G. Samidandated November12, 2010Q Photocopyof letter dated November17, 2010 addressedto

CooperativeBank of Benzuetsignedby Dick LeeOngR True electroniccopyof RealEstate Mortgagedated April 15,

2010 betweenCooperativeBank of Benguet and FerdinandB. Samidanand Rhighina G. Samidan

S Amendment of Real Estate Mortgagedated July 12, 2010between Cooperative Bank of Benguet and SpousesFerdinandB. Samidanand Rhighina G. Samidan

T Certificate of Sale dated December14, 2011 issued to theCooperativeBank of Benguetconsisting of 3 pages

U Final Certificateof SaledatedJanuary 3,2013 issued to theCooperativeBank of Benzuet

V Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership dated January 3,2013

W Letter datedJanuary 26, 2011 addressedto Atty. Juanito K.Ampagueysignedby Rhighina G. Samidan

X Letter dated January 26, 2011 addressedto Atty. JuanitoAmpaguey signed by Rhighina Samidan regarding thereinstatementof TCTNo.62576

Y to Y-4 ReportdatedJanuary 2,2012 addressedto Hon. Eulalio C.Diaz III submitted by InvestigatorJoel Mari Martin Bigornia

Y-5 to Y-ll Verified Complaintdated March 2,2011Y-12 to Y-13 Transfer Certificateof Title No.T-62576 (Owner'sDuplicate

Certificate)in the nameof Dick LeeOngY-14 Affidavit of Rhighina SamidandatedJune 15,2010Y-15 to Y-17 Affidavit of Rhiahina Samidandated September17,2010Y-18 Affidavit of Rhighina SamidanY-19 to Y-42 Commentdated August 25, 2011 of respondentJuanito K.

Ampagueyincluding the attachment theretoZ NoticedatedDecember11,2012, re ADM CaseNo. 12-06for

Grave Misconduct signed by Michael C. Superable,ActingChief, Inspectionand InvestigationDivision

Z-1 to Z-8 Resolution dated August 31, 2012 re ADM CaseNo. 13-06for GraveMisconduct

AA to AA-10 Decision.dated May 18, 2015 of RegionalTrial Court FirstJudicial Region,Branch 61, Baguio City, in Civil CaseNo.7443-R

BB-1 to BB-8 Various Official Receiptsof filing feesand legalexpensesCC ServiceRecordof Juanito KibatayAmpagueyCC-1 Letter of AppointmentdatedDecember9,2012CC-2to CC-5 PersonalData Sheetof Juanito Kibatay AmpagueyDD Affidavit of Loss dated April 6, 2010 executedby Jennette

OngAbuanEE, EE-2, EE-4 Counter-Affidavit of Juanito K. Ampagueydated April 13,

2012EE-5 to EE-22 Attachments to the Counter-AffidavitFF Photocopyof logbookentry on p. 53FF-l PleadingNo.354 L-C-11-0523-Hof AmpagueyGG Land RegistrationAuthority Circular No. 3 dated December

6, 1988HH to HH-5 Computer printout of Trace Transaction of EPEB No.

2010001100II to II-5 Computer printout of Trace Transaction of EPEB No.

2010001199JJ Computer printout of Trace Transaction for EPEB No.

2010001223KK Computer printout of Trace Transaction for EPEB No.

2010001390

DecisionPeoplev.fuanito K. AmpagueySB-16-CRM-0131Page 28 of 38x ----------------------------- --- --- ------- ---- ----- --- --- --- -- x

LL Computer printout of Trace Transaction for EPEB No.2010001986

MM Computer printout of Trace Transaction for EPEB No.2010002316

NN Computer printout of Trace Transaction for EPEB No.2010003940

00 Computer printout of Trace Transaction for EPEB no.201004245

B. For the defense:

Exhibit Brief Description

1 CancelledTCTNo.T-62576 in the name of Dick LeeOng2 and 2-a SpecialPowerof Attorney executedby Dick LeeOng in favor

of Jennette OngdatedAugust 287, 20072-b Electronic copy of SpecialPowerof Attorney

2-c Sameas Exhibit F of the prosecution

2 Deedof Absolute Saleexecutedby Dick LeeOngrepresentedby Jennette Ong Abuan in favor of spousesFerdinand andRhighina Samidan

3 Samedocument as Exhibit E to EA of the prosecution4, 4-A to 4-D TCTNo.018-2010001035in the name of SpousesFerdinand

and RHighina Samidan5 Petition for issuance of new Owner's Copy of TCT No. T-

62576 in lieu of the lost copyand docketedas LRCCaseNo.1954-

6 Letter dated June 14, 2010 of Atty. Francisco Baraan III toAtty. Juanito K. Ampaguey

7 Deedof Absolute SaledatedJune 14,2010 executedby DickLeeOngand SpousesSamidan

8 Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of TCT No. 018-2011entitled Dick Lee Ong versus SpousesFerdinand Samidanand Rhighina Samidan, Cooperative Bank of Benguet,Jennette OngAbuan, Juanito Kibatay Ampagueyand PhilipDoe,docketedas Civil CaseNo. 7443-R

9 Answerof accusedin Civil CaseNo.7443-R datedNovember4,2011

10 VerifiedAnswerof CooperativeBank of Benguet in Civil CaseNo. 7443-R dated November9, 2011

11 Amended Answer with AffirrnativeySpecial Defenses,Compulsory Counterclaim and Cross-Claim of CooperativeBank of Benguet,dated November28, 2011

12 Order datedDecember3,2012 issued in Civil CaseNo.7443-R

13 Reservedmarking for Certificate of Pendencyof Civil CaseNo. 7443-R (Certification dated November22,2016 from theClerk of Court V, RTCBr. 61, Baguio City)

14 Reservedmarking for Certificate of Pendencyregarding theRegistrationof Affidavit of ConsolidationofTitle on foreclosedproperty covered by TCT No. 0108-201000035 before theLand Registration Authority (Certification dated November22, 2016 from the Records Officer 1, Registry of Deeds,Baguio City)

15 Sameas Exhibit E-616 Sameas Exhibit E-7

17 SameasExhibits AA to AA-1018 Certificate of Pendency

19 Sameas Exhibit DD

DecisionPeoplev.juanito K. AmpagueySB-16-CRM-0131Page 29 of 38x ---- --- --------- --------- ------------ --- ----- ----- ---- --- --- -- x

FACTS

The facts of this case appear to be straightforward, anddoesnot deviate substantially with the findings of Branch 61 ofthe Regional Trial Court of Baguio City for the Declaration ofNullity of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-018-20ll000l035of the Registry of Deedsof Baguio City (Annex "AA" to "AA-lO").

Sometime in April 2010, a certain TessieDagasenwent toJesus Nazarene General Hospital at Lingayen, Pangasinanlooking for the private complainant, Dick Lee Ong. Afterascertaining that he was indeed Dick Lee Ong, Dagaseninformed him that her sister, Rhighina Samidan, was victimizedby con-artists who sold to the latter the property coveredby TCTNo.T-62576, which was owned by Dick LeeOng.

Dick Lee Ong then called his father, Delfin Ong, whoadvised Dagasen to bring Rhighina as well as all relateddocuments in a subsequent meeting. After a couple of days,Dagasen and Rhighina met with Dick Lee Ong and his father,Delfin. During the meeting, Rhighina narrated that she cametoknow of the private complainant's property from a certain PerlaLimliman who approached her and claimed that she was thehousemaid of Dick LeeOng. Limliman showedRhighina a copyof TCT No. 62576 and told her that Dick Lee Ong was sellingthe property. Limliman further said. that the property wasmortgagedto one "Cathy" for PhP375,000.00.

During the samemeeting, Rhighina told Delfin that a newtitle, TCT No. T-018-20l000l035 was issued to her by JuanitoAmpaguey, the Register of Deeds of Baguio City, even if theOwner's Duplicate Copy was not presented during the processof the transfer. Rhighina also showed to Dick Lee Ong andDelfin other documents of the bogus transaction, and requestedthem to legitimize her acquisiton of the property.

With Rhighina's offer, the private complainant and Delfinsuggestedthat they meet again in the presence of a lawyer todiscuss the matter. This meeting happened a week after at theoffice of Atty. Francisco Baraan III in Lenox Hotel, DagupanCity. At this instance, Rhighina divulged that she was alreadyfooled twice throughout the time she acquired the subjectproperty. First was with one who claimed he was Dick LeeOngand second was with a Jennette Ong, who represented herselfas the daughter of Dick LeeOng. She said that a Jennette Ongeven presented a Special Power of Attorney dated August 28,

DecisionPeople v.]uanito K AmpagueyS8-16-CRM -0131Page 30 of 38x ---- --- -------- ------ ---- --- --- -- --- ------ ---------- -- -------- x

2007 authorizing her to sell the property. Rhighina showed toDick Lee Ong and Delfin a Deed of Sale dated April 13, 2010she entered into with a Jennette Ong Abuan, as well as theCancellation or Revocationdated April 14, 2010 cancelling thefirst Deedof Salethat was executedon March 20, 2010.

Eventually, Rhighina proposed to buy the property fromDick Lee Ong and Delfin in the amount of PhP19,500,000.00but to be paid in three (3) installments by way of postdatedchecks. Rhighina said shewill be back to hand them the checkssince she was in a hurry to go back to Baguio City.

Dick Lee Ong and Delfin sought the opinion of Atty.Baraan on what to do under the circumstances. Atty Baraanadvised them to seek the cancellation of the new transfercertificate of title which cancelledTCT No. T-62576, but in themeantime, they were advised that it was best to make a Noticeof AdverseClaim and have it annotated in the new title, whichthey did on April 28, 2010.

On June 14, 2010, Rhighina came back to the office ofAtty. Baraan and finalized the transaction that would havesupposedly legitimized her acquisition over the subjectproperty. It was their understanding that should any of thechecks be dishonored for any reason, the transaction would becancelled without the need of going to court. Consequently,Rhighina issued three postdated RCBC checks, with theagreement that a deed of sale shall be executed only after fullpayment of the purchase price, and with the agreementthat theNotice of Adverse Claim dated April 28, 2010 annotated in thenew title be cancelled,which Dick LeeOngdid, believing in goodfaith in the dealings.

However, the first post-dated check in the amount ofPhP10,000,OOO.00was dishonored, and it was agreedthat DickLeeOng inform Rhighina that the transaction will be cancelled.

Dick Lee Ong then worked on the cancellation of the newtitle. During the process, it was discovered that Rhighinamortgaged the property .for PhP15,000,000.00 with theCooperativeBank of Benguet.With this discovery,Dick LeeOngand Delfin were constrained to call Rhighina and they agreedtomeet on September 17,2010.

In the officeof Atty. Baraan, Rhighina executedan affidavitreciting the events that led to the issuance of the new title inher and her husband's name. At another instance, on November

DecisionPeople v.[uanito K. AmpagueyS8-16-CRM-0131Page 31 of 38x ------ -- ----- --- ------- -- --- ------ ----- --- --- -- -- -- --- --- --- -- x

12, 2010, Rhighina returned to Pangasinan to execute a moredetailed affidavit.

Dick Lee Ong executed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim onNovember 15,2010, attaching thereto the affidavits executedbyRhighina Samidan.

Thereafter, a communication was made by Dick Lee Ongto the CooperativeBank of Benguet about the nullity of the newtitle mortgaged to it by Rhighina. The communication wasthrough a letter dated November 17,2010, with the affidavits ofRhighina attached thereto.

Also, the private complainant asked Rhighina to requestthe Register of Deeds of Baguio City to have the new titlecancelled, and the latter executedan authorization and requestin private complainant's favor for him to deliver to Ampagueythe request for the cancellation of the new title and thereinstatement of the original title, which request was denied.

As regards the new title, the CooperativeBank of Benguetcaused the foreclosure of the mortgage on December 15,2011.Since there was no bidder, the Certificate of Salewas issued tothe Cooperative Bank of Benguet. Since no redemption wasmade during the period allowed by law, an Affidavit ofConsolidation was executed by the said bank, which washowever refused registration.

ISSUE

Did the prosecution establish the elements of Section 3,Paragraph (e)of RepublicAct No. 3019, as amended?

RULING

Section 3, Paragraph (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, asamended, has the following elements:

1. the offender is a public officer;

2. the act was done in the discharge of the public officer'sofficial, administrative or judicial functions;

3. the act was done through manifest partiality, evidentbad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence;and

DecisionPeople v. ]uanito K. Ampaguey

S8-16-CRM -0131Page 32 of 38x --- ----- -- ---- -- --------- --- -------- --- ---- ------ --- -- --- --- -- x

4. the public officer causedany undue injury to any party,including the Government, or gave any unwarrantedbenefits, advantageor preference.103

The first element above, that the accused is a publicofficer, was stipulated on by the parties in the Pre-Trial Orderdated April 3, 2017.

The second element is also present, in that the acts weredonein the discharge of the accused'sfunctions as the Registrarof Deeds, Baguio City, pursuant to the above enumeration.Particularly; the issuance of TCT No. 018-201000010135 onApril 14, 2010 under the name of SpousesFerdinand Samidanand Rhighina Samidan is a direct corollary of the position ofbeing the Register of Deedsof a certain location.

The third element of Section 3 (e)of R.A. No. 3019 is thedecisivepoint in this case.

In various SupremeCourt cases,.itwas held that: the said"element may be committed in three ways, i.e., throughmanifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusablenegligence. Proof of any of these three in connection with theprohibited acts mentioned in .Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 isenough to convict."104In this case, the information alleges thethree ways or manner that accused allegedly committed theoffensecharged.

'''Partiality' is synonymous with 'bias' which 'excites adisposition to see and report matters as they are wished forrather than as they are.' 'Bad faith doesnot simply connote badjudgment or negligence;it imputes a dishonest purpose or somemoral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach ofsworn duty through somemotive or intent or ill will; it partakesof the nature of fraud.' 'Gross negligence'has been so definedas negligence characterized by the want of even slight care,acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty toact, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with aconscious indifference to consequences in so far as otherpersons may be affected. It is the omission of that care whicheveninattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on theirown property."105

I03Sison v. People, G.R.Nos. 170339 and 170398-403,9 March 2010, 614 SeRA670,679.I04Id.losId.

DecisionPeople v.juanito K. AmpagueySB-16-CRM-0131Page 33 of 38x ----- -------- - --- -- - -- ---- -- - -- - --- - - - ---- - - --- - --- - --- ---- --- x

In this case,the showing of manifest partiality, evident badfaith or gross inexcusable negligence boils down to onequestion: Did accusedAmpagueycausethe issuance ofTCT No.018-201000010135 and the cancellation of TCT No. 62576without being presented the necessary requirement of anOwner's Duplicate Copy of the latter title? Based on theevidencepresented, the answer is in the affirmative.

The prevailing law on the matter is relatively clear.Presidential Decree No. 1529 or the Property RegistrationDecreeof 1978 which states that:

Section 53. Presentation of owner's duplicate uponentry of new certificate. No voluntary instrument shall beregistered by the Register of Deeds, unless the owner'sduplicate certificate is presented with such instrument,except in cases expressly provided for in this Decree or uponorder of the court, for cause shown.

The production of the owner's duplicate certificate,whenever any voluntary instrument is presented forregistration, shall be conclusive authority from the registeredowner to the Register of Deeds to enter a new certificate or tomake a memorandum of registration in accordance with suchinstrument, and the new certificate or memorandum shall bebinding upon the registered owner and upon all personsclaiming under him, in favor of every purchaser for value andin good faith.

In all cases of registration procured by fraud, the ownermay pursue all his legal and equitable remedies against theparties to such fraud without prejudice, however, to the rightsof any innocent holder for value of a certificate of title. Afterthe entry of the decree of registration on the original petitionor application, any subsequent registration procured by thepresentation of a forged duplicate certificate of title, or a forgeddeed or other instrument, shall be null and void.

Section 109. Notice and replacement of lost duplicatecertificate. In case of loss or theft of an owner's duplicatecertificate of title, due notice under oath shall be sent by theowner or by someone in his behalf to the Register of Deeds ofthe province or city where the land lies as soon as the loss ortheft is discovered. If a duplicate certificate is lost ordestroyed, or cannot be produced by a person applying for theentry of a new certificate to him or for the registration of anyinstrument, a sworn statement of the fact of such loss ordestruction may be filed by the registered owner or otherperson in interest and registered.

DecisionPeople v. juanito K. AmpagueySB-16-CRM-0131Page 34 of 38x ------------- ------ --- ------ --- ---- ---- ------ --- --- ---- -- --- -- x

Upon the petition of the registered owner or otherperson in interest, the court may, after notice and duehearing, direct the issuance of a new duplicate certificate,which shall containa memorandumof the fact that it is issuedin place of the lost duplicate certificate, but shall in allrespectsbe entitled to like faith and credit as the originalduplicate, and shall thereafter be regardedas such for allpurposesof this decree.

From the above, it could be seen from Section 53 that ifthere is a voluntary transfer as in this case,in a conveyanceofa property through a deedof absolute sale, the presentation ofthe owner's duplicate certificate is required. If it cannot beproduced, Section 109states that "a sworn statement of the factof such loss or destruction may be filed" and "upon the petitionof the registered owner or other person in interest, the courtmay, after notice and due hearing, direct the issuance of a newduplicate certificate." In other words and summarizing theseprovisions, for voluntary transfers, an Owner's Duplicate Copyis a necessaryrequirement. If it cannot beproduced, no transfercan be made. If a property owner wants to pursue the sale, hemust first ask for another copy of the lost title, and such couldonly be done after filing- a court petition and receiving afavorable action thereafter.

In this case, it is clear that accusedAmpaguey derogatedfrom the clear mandate of the law - a law which had been inexistence since 1978. In his Counter Affidavit dated April 13,2012 and received by the Ombudsman on April 24, 2012, headmitted allowing the issuance TCT No. 018-201000010135and cancelling TCT No. 62576 without being presented thenecessary requirement of an Owner's Duplicate Copy. Inparagraph 11 thereof, he said that "[i]n goodfaith and believingthat he will be helping a distressed registrant" he "decided to'issue a new title, TCT No. 018-2010001035, to the spousesSamidan; that the owner's copy of TCT No. T-62576 was notpresentedbecauseit was reported lost per the Affidavit of Lossannotated as Entry No. 2010001100 on TCT No. T-62576 x xx."

When accused Ampaguey testified and was asked by theCourt, he confirmed that indeed the presentation of theduplicate original is a requirement for the registration of a saleand the subsequent registration, and, absent the same, anOrder from a court of competentjurisdiction was required.

DecisionPeople v.juanito K. Ampag ueySB-16-CRM-0131Page35 of 38x ---- --- --- ----- -- ----- -- ----- ---------- -- ---- --- ------ --- --- -- x

Justice De La Cruz:

Q: How many times have you allowed the registration of a deed ofabsolute sale of a parcel of land without requiring the party topresent the owner's copy of the title?

The witness:

A: That was the first time, your Honor.

Q: No more?

A: No more.

Q: How about the precedent that you mentioned, how many timesdid it happen?

The witness:

A: I do not know, but I only knew one case,your Honor.

Justice De La Cruz:

Q: And was that Register of Deeds a subject of a complaint,administrative case?

A: No, your Honor.

Q: Because there were no other transactions involved m theproperty?

A: Yes,your Honor.

Justice Econg:

Q: The precedent was also the Register [of Deeds]of Baguio?

The witness:

A: Yes, your Honor.

Q: But this was not done by you? By your predecessor?

A: Yes,your Honor.

Justice De La Cruz:

Q: But you know the requirements of the law? That incident is notin accordancewith existing laws?

The witness:

A: Yes,your Honor.

Justice Econg:

Q: Becausehow should the transfer be made if you are going to doit in accordancewith law?

The witness:

A: Becauseof that precedent,your Honor.

Justice De La Cruz:

DecisionPeople v.juanito K AmpagueySB-16-CRM-0131Page36 of 38x ---------------- --------- --- -------- --- -- ---------- --- --- --- -- x

Q: You mentioned that that precedent is not in accordancewith law.Why did you not follow the law instead of following thattransaction?

A: I just relied on the precedent.

Q: You just choseto rely on the precedent rather than following thelaw? .

A: Yes, your Honor.l06

Later in his testimony, this was clarified when he statedthat what he meant by precedent is the act of the previousRegister of Deeds of Baguio City, he explained that the formerRegister of Deeds, Atty. Ernesto Diomampo, who allowed theissuance of title even without the presentation of the owner'sduplicate copy. But, an act committed by a predecessorthat isagainst the existing law on land registration could never makehis action correct or evenlegal.

In the documentary and testimonial evidence presented,there is nothing apparent that would point to accusedAmpaguey'sinterest or benefit in the transaction. His statementin his Counter Affidavit that he thought he was merely helpinga "distressed registrant" since, as could be seen in paragraph10 thereof, the Samidans pleaded to him because their loanwith the CooperativeBank of Benguetwill be cancelled,appearsto be true. However,such justification still constitutes manifestpartiality even if there is no evidence that he profited orbenefitedfrom the transaction. Such act is still a blatant affrontto the clear instruction of the law and could be gleanedas grossinexcusable negligence, satisfying the third element of thecnme.

The fourth element is likewise present in this case.The actof the accused caused undue injury to Dick Lee Ong for themarket value of his lot and actual legal expensesin recoveringthe title, as alleged in the Information. It is also true that inArt. 100 of the RevisedPenal Code, persons who are found tobe criminally liable are also held to be civilly liable.

In this case, the prosecution was able to present receiptsto establish the legal expenses or the amount spent forrecoveringthe property of private complainant, Dick LeeOng.107

However, no proof of the market value of the property waspresented. Market value of the property could have beendetermined through the tax declaration of the property, for

106 TSNdated August 28,2018, pp. 54-56.

107 Exhibits BB to BB-8 with a total amount of PhP188,366.00.

DecisionPeople v.juanito K. AmpagueyS8-16-CRM-0131Page 37 of 38x ---- --- ------ ---- -- --- ---- --------- ------- ------ ----- --- ---- -- x

example, or an appraisal report from any appraiser. But, noneof these were presented.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused, Juanito K.Ampaguey, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the chargeagainst him. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law108, theaccused is sentenced to suffer art indeterminate penalty ofimprisonment of Six (6) years and One (1) Month as minimumto Eight (8) Years, as maximum and perpetual disqualificationfrom holding public office.109

Moreover, pursuant to Article 100 of the Revised PenalCode, accused Ampaguey is held liable to pay the privatecomplainant, Dick Lee Ong, Php 188, 366.00 or the amount ofthe legal expenses in recovering the subject property.

SO ORDERED.

Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines.

~ f.aa1 ~GERALDINE FAITH A. iCONG

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

EFREN 11r1E LA CRUZASSO~~ Justice

Chairperson

'-7~l4\Ck~,-""':"'J1IGA DO M. CA~

Associate Justice

108 Act No. 4103, as amended by Act No. 4225, states in Section 1 that if the offense is punished by aspecial law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term ofwhich shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than theminimum term prescribed by the same. (Indeterminate Sentence Law)109 R.A.No. 3019, provides:

Section 9 (a) Any public officer or private person committing any of the unlawful acts or omissionsenumerated in Sections 3,4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment for not less thansix years and one month nor more than fifteen years, perpetual disqualification from public office, andconfiscation or forfeiture in favor of the Government of any prohibited interest and unexplained.

DecisionPeoplev.juanito K.AmpagueySB-16-CRM-0131Page 38 of 38x ----- --- -------- - -- --- --- --- - ------ - - -- - - - - --- -- --- --- - -- - -- - - x

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above decision werereached in consultatio~ before the case was assigned to thewriter of the opinion of the Court's Division.

EFREN ~~~ LA CRUZAss~B~l Justice

Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant -to Article VIII, Section 13, of the Constitution,and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certifiedthat the conclusions in the above decision were reached inconsultation before the case was assigned to the writer of theopinion of the Court's Division.